The goodness of bad art
We might say that for art to be good, it
requires time and effort on the behalf of the artist. We might also say that
the artist must have succeeded at expressing an intended emotion, or an
attitude, or a reaction, in order for us to call her a successful artist.
I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth!
The success of an art can be down to the skill of the artist, but let us
also give random chance its due.
Generally
speaking, I should think that most people know what they are getting into when
they visit a certain art gallery, or movie theatre, or watch a video on the
internet. The observer of an art has an intentionality; they want to
experience a certain feeling and that is why they choose to observe an art.
This intentionality is understandable; when you are feeling down you will want
to experience something that uplifts you, or something that allows you to
wallow in self-pity; the end goal of your intentionality may vary, but
ultimately you are seeking out 'X' art to feel 'Y' emotion.
With this
intentionality in mind, we risk being disappointed: You have had a terrible day
at work and you go to watch 'Action Battle hero XVIII: Slaughter of the Two
Dimensional Badguys - Reloaded'. The purpose of watching Action Battle Hero
XVIII is to relieve yourself of stress and to put yourself in the shoes of Jack
Skullblaster, the insanely masculine, gun-toting hero. There is now a risk of
being disappointed by the flat dialogue, the appalling acting and the
ludicrous survivability of Mr.Skullblaster. In effect, the art is bad, it has
failed to fulfil its intended function, and you the observer are grossly let
down by it.
Yet this is a negative attitude to take. To only be
satisfied by the intended function of an art is to miss out on a whole
different world; the realm of failed art. We would live in a hellish world
indeed if every piece of art crafted by our creatives fell short of the mark,
but fortunately this will never be the case; there will always be good art.
When we do encounter bad art, rather than be disappointed, we should learn to
appreciate it for reasons different to its intended function. If we do this,
Action Battle Hero XVIII becomes an out-and-out comedy rather than an action
film.
The intention of the artists creativity can easily be missed
by the varying nature of human tastes: you may have created a painting to
express your sadness, but someone observing it can bring their own intention to
the piece; they may not be of a mood to appreciate your work. We appreciate (or
fail to appreciate) art only as much as we have adjusted our own lenses to do
so – if we widen our focus, we can learn to appreciate everything,
regardless of what the artist intended (although sometimes, we will want to
submit to the artists intentions, especially if she is a capable craftswoman.)
Finally, bad
art has another advantage; lack of polish. Terrible poetry is often more
truthful than a well constructed poem, if only because the true meaning of it
isn't contained in the actual poem, but in the fact that the weak writer was
trying to create a work of art (bless them!). The real message of a bad
piece of art is the pathos, the sheer tragedy of the artists failure, which
resounds as strong as the emotions exhibited by the best art. Again, the
outcome of the art is not what the artist intended, but that does not mean we
cannot appreciate badness on a level that suits us evil-types who find the
terrible terribly amusing. And perhaps the creator of bad art should embrace
the fact that they have failed to meet their intention on this occasion and
develop themselves beyond where they presently are.
The goodness of bad art lies in its
ability to accidentally amuse, entertain or inform, with its raw lack of
polish. It is for this reason that we should avoid saying that art requires the
observer appreciating the artists actual intentions in order to contain some
'goodness'.
By Selim 'Selim'
Talat
